An Unexpected Victory, Unconditional Surrender, and Unfinished Business.

[Cadence]

I think what Maxperson is getting at is, assuming that WotC’s putative ability to “de-authorize” is actually taken as an ability to rescind their offer to license (and subsequently allow sublicenses of) their SRDs, it does not appear clear that they have the ability to prevent creators who have already offered their own content to be licensed under the OGL’s terms.

If I understand pemerton, at best, they could claim copyright infringement on the text of the OGL, if that was included in the new work. But if it’s not included, then only the creator whose work is being used could bring claim against the sub-licensee for being in breach of the license. And if they don’t, well, WotC doesn’t have any standing to take it to court.

The key is that the OGL is not a statute enforced by WotC, but that each use of OGC content is an individual license between two parties. In the case of non-SRD content, WotC is not one of the parties.

And I think @Maxperson agreed they should keep slapping the 1.0a document in the back if there was anyone in the IP chain that hadn't given some other permission.

If that is all true then I think I get it.

 

[Maxperson]

No, what you said was:

Produced. As in original. Not reproduced or derived from. I even clarified that multiple times in later posts.

So again. What can I originally(since for some reason I have to put that in) produce for 5e via OGL 1.0a that I can't with the SRD that is in CC?

 

[Cadence]

Produced. As in original. Not reproduced or derived from. I even clarified that multiple times in later posts.

So again. What can I originally(since for some reason I have to put that in) produce for 5e via OGL 1.0a that I can't with the SRD that is in CC?

Seems like if you are just basing it on the 5.1 SRD and nothing else you could make exactly the same things except that a few things in are out as 1.0a product identity and are not out by CC-BY.

 

[Maxperson]

I think what Maxperson is getting at is, assuming that WotC’s putative ability to “de-authorize” is actually taken as an ability to rescind their offer to license (and subsequently allow sublicenses of) their SRDs, it does not appear clear that they have the ability to prevent creators who have already offered their own content to be licensed under the OGL’s terms.

If I understand pemerton, at best, they could claim copyright infringement on the text of the OGL, if that was included in the new work. But if it’s not included, then only the creator whose work is being used could bring claim against the sub-licensee for being in breach of the license. And if they don’t, well, WotC doesn’t have any standing to take it to court.

The key is that the OGL is not a statute enforced by WotC, but that each use of OGC content is an individual license between two parties. In the case of non-SRD content, WotC is not one of the parties.

And they can't even really claim infringement now(at least not with things allowed by OGL 1.0a) since SRD 5.1 is open content in CC, so even if they do deauthorize the OGL 1.0a, that wouldn't really change anything now. There's no real point to doing that any longer.

 

[Maxperson]

Seems like if you are just basing it on the 5.1 SRD and nothing else you could make exactly the same things except that a few things in are out as 1.0a product identity and are not out by CC-BY.

Yep. You can actually do a bit more with the CC-BY-4.0 than you could with OGL 1.0a.

 

[Enrahim2]

Why wouldn't CC, which is also a license no single company can unilaterally redact or alter, serve that same function but already exists in a great court-tested format?

Dustin_00's reply addresses the intended benefit of ORC over OGL 1.0a. Listing the benefits of ORC over CC would likely look very different, but if we assume it in effect try to do the same things as OGL1.0a it would include things like:

• More convenient use from multiple sources.
• SA default limited in a way that appear acceptable to most companies (No small feat).
• Actually strengthening protection of key IP - something CC cannot provide. This make it more easy to sell in to big IP holders (For licensed RPGs for instance).
• Single license relevant for the domain prevent needing expertise on the tricky field of cross-licensing to enter the market on similar footing as the rest, even as an amateur.

 

[Enrahim2]

Produced. As in original. Not reproduced or derived from. I even clarified that multiple times in later posts.

So again. What can I originally(since for some reason I have to put that in) produce for 5e via OGL 1.0a that I can't with the SRD that is in CC?

If you want to "produce something for 5ed" that is neither reproducing nor deriving anything, then you wouldn't need any license at all? Noone is preventing you from publishing fully original work, and including the notice "This is intended for use with 5e" or similar. No need for any CC for that..

(Problem might for instance arise if you for instance want to make a (derivative) work based on how the designers of 5ed has envisioned that a general creature can be represented within their framework (Like by including a 5ed compatible stat block of your original creature). The jury is still not gotten into the court on if this is something that would require a license or not.)

 

[robconley]

What part stops you? The OGL 1.0a license itself is not OGC. It says what OGC is. OGL specifies that all of the rest(everything not explicitly excluded) of SRD 5 is open content as described in 1(d). The license terms describe that you are adding OGC as per 1(d) and anything not OGC is PI.

You could never use PI without permission by the 3PP creator. Original OGC is not under the control of WotC. And you can freely use everything else that is OGC from SRD 5.1 or its derivatives while SRD 5.1 is in CC. So again, what is stopping you from using a 5e 3PP product?

I am talking about ALL open content provided by third parties independent of any Wizard's authored SRD since the year 2000. You in contrast are focused on 5e oriented content. There are 23 years worth of creative content where the author only permitted reuse under the OGL 1.0a. That why a OGL 1.0b is important.

 

[Maxperson]

I am talking about ALL open content provided by third parties independent of any Wizard's authored SRD since the year 2000. You in contrast are focused on 5e oriented content. There are 23 years worth of creative content where the author only permitted reuse under the OGL 1.0a. That why a OGL 1.0b is important.

What would be the point of WotC stopping OGL 1.0a now? 5e and beyond are the only things that are relevant to WotC. That's where the lion's share of the money is. They aren't going to revoke OGL 1.0a now since it wouldn't do anything to 5e 3PP content. The older stuff is going to be fine.

 

[Matt Thomason]

Produced. As in original. Not reproduced or derived from. I even clarified that multiple times in later posts.

So again. What can I originally(since for some reason I have to put that in) produce for 5e via OGL 1.0a that I can't with the SRD that is in CC?

Your phrasing here is quite difficult to understand - "reproduced or derived from" would include making something based just on the SRD just as much as something that also includes content based on 3rd party material. "Originally" would only apply if you're not using any source, and are making a whole new game from scratch. You're somehow treating the SRD as if it's any different to any other Open Game Content under the OGL. It's all just text sources you're allowed to draw from.

So, for clarification:
With Option A (OGL 1.0a) you can draw Open Game Content from the SRD as well as from 23 years of other accumulated Open Game Content made under the OGL (literally thousands of spells, monsters, etc)

With Option B (CC LIcense), you can draw content from the SRD, or any other CC-licensed sources you can find, but cannot use that library of 23 years of Open Game Content that has been licensed under the OGL

That's the difference.
There is also Option C, which is to use both licenses. It's a bit messier to work with, but it's possible, and that lets you draw from both pools of content.